Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Actually, the '06 Pontiac Montana and Buick Terraza are also available with AWD.
BTW - I think that it's absolutely criminal that Cadillac, Saab and GMC don't have their own versions of the GM corporate minivan to sell. What is GM thinking, leaving these dealers out in the cold.......
Employee pricing should be back shortly so I'd hold off until that at least. Also, a dealer should not have any problem finding you a van with ABS, even if they have to get it out of state. Get the color you want with the ABS!!!
The Buick and Pontiac versions are history after 06 MY!!! Thank God!!! I feel bad for people who have purchased these orphans!! It's typical of domestics, fill a niche with anything that'll fit...think of all the games they play:
1) Hey, lets just take a Holden, slap a Pontiac GTO badge on it and sell it!! People will buy it
2) Hey! lets take this European Ford and call it Merkur!!
Think of the rebates then!
Nothing wrong with driving an orphan, right? (especially if you got an excellent deal on it)
1) Odyssey (8.2s)
Star quality continues to shine through every aspect of this personable, polished, and capable transporter. Incredible driving pleasure.
2) Sedona (8.0s)
Excellent packagin, impressive performance, stunning value plus an outstanding warranty should win this versatile team player plenty of new fans.
3) Quest (8.5s)
Stylish and sporty outside, its new interior trimout replaces ultramodern edge with more conventional- and user-friendly, trappings. Pity about the prices.
4) Grand Caravan (10.3s)
Aging less than gracefully, its continuing popularity seems drvien as much by inertia as by innovation. The 2008 redesign can't arrive too soon.
When the Saturn Outlook comes out, then you'll have exactly the configuration you want.
MOST (not all) minivan buyer's criteria is to be able to haul families and stuff with the utmost flexibility at a family affordable price, and that is exactly where the DC minivans shine. Yes they are not state of the art in all aspects, however their flexibility as a people/stuff hauler with the Stow and Go seating is much more important.
One item no one mentions is that the 3.3L V-6 in the Caravan and SE Grand Caravan is I believe the only minivan on the market today that can burn E-85 fuel, which could become much more important in a few years, if the trends accelerate toward E-85. You will see increasing amounts of flex fuel vehicles in the near future, DC introduced that in 2002 for Caravan/Town & Country, though they have not marketed it much at all.
My Porche 911 Turbo has a much lower 45-60 MPH passing time, so I guess that doesn't speak well for other vehicles engines, trannys or safety.
Point is, you should know your vehicles capabilities and drive accordingly. I doubt very few minivan owners run around passing vehicles with their families in tow. 1.5 seconds difference is not that critical unless you're driving unsafely to begin with...i.e..passing when there's oncoming traffic.
BTW - I don't own a Porche 911
And what about all the poor souls driving any car that doesn't have an 8 second 45-60 passing time. They should just kill themselves now inside of being killed on a highway trying to merge or pass!!!
If you go to the Dodge Caravan website, they tout it there but you're right, they're not marketing it much. Wonder way?
Same difference between my Tundra and my prior Chevy pickup. On paper they have similar perfomance numbers, but on the hills the Toyota is much quicker/responsive.
My prior Tahoe would run on E-85. Personally, I don't see the market really opening up. Poor performance, poor fuel economy, cold-starting issues (per the manual, I never tried it in the cold). Yeah, it's the fuel of the future :confuse:
MT also made note of the second row Stow n Go seating in the DGC ,"Dodge obviously prioritized the fit-in-the-floorwell parameteers of Stow n Go over actual human comfort" OUCH!
Quite surprising they spoke so highly of the Sedona though.
Maybe it was because the Sedona scorched the Ody in the 0-60 time?
It will be interesting to see the Consumer Reports review, supposedly an extra in the September issue. Sounds like the latest Motor Trend is worth a trip and a few bucks to buy it. Does jrock's ranking indicate they liked the Odyssey best overall? Incidentally, here is the last comparo: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/van/112_0505_2005_mininvan_comparison/specs_- price.html
It's always good to be the new kid on the block though. DCX's design/engine date back to 2001 and needs updating....we'll see the next gen at the North American Auto Show in 6 months....260hp/275 ft/lb of torque, 6 speed with overdrive, power stow n go seats, cup holders with heaters and coolers and a diaper changing table.....
Maybe because:
a) E85 if extremely hard to find in most markets;
b) In most markets that DO have E85, it is more expensive than 'regular' gasoline;
c) Your gas mileage will be much worse.
According to this data:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm
The EPA ratings on Caravan with the 3.3l V6 is 19/26. On E85 fuel, those ratings drop to 13/17.
Wonder no more.
Ethanol plants are sprouting like dandelions here in the Midwest. It is only a matter of time before E85 supplies become abundant, possibly nationwide. Current demand is mostly being driven for 10% replacement Ethanol in gas as a replacment for MBTE.
As long as conventional gas prices stays at current prices or goes up more, even with lower efficiency, E-85 ethanol.
And if E85 does not come to pass, the 3.3 DC V-6 will still drink regular gas fairly efficiently.
My guess why other manufacturers aren't jumping on the wagon (or other engine configurations for DC) is because of the cost of certifying another engine for emissions/fuel economy. Costs a lot and they don't get a dime more for the E85 engines.
As well as future demand as far as I can tell. The U.S. currently consumes around 140 Billion gallons of gas per year. We currently produce 4.4 Billion gallons of ethanol per year. To get JUST TO THE MANDATED 10% level for E10, we need to produce about 14 Billion gallons of ethanol (roughly 3x what we currently produce).
I think ethanol demand will outstrip supply for quite some time, just to meet the E10 requirements. Which tells me that it will be a LONG time before E85 (domestically produced E85 anyway) is economically viable as a replacement for gasoline.
Or we could just eliminate the high tariffs on sugar-cane based ethanol from Brazil in which case E85 would be economically viable much sooner....
Perhaps.
But consider, according to a November 2005 report by the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center (I presume it is favorable to the Ag Industry), domestic ethanol production will reach 7.5 Billion gallons per year by 2012.
http://www.agmrc.org/NR/rdonlyres/86C4971C-D8CB-49E8-BE0B-D1E532513226/0/ethanol- california.pdf
If you can find something indicating much more anticipated production than this, I'd love to see it.
We currently consume 140 Billion gallons of gas per year. Assuming a modest 1% increase in consumption per year (it has averaged around 1.5% increase over the last 5 years), gasoline consumption by 2012 will be closer to 148 billion gallons/year.
So even at 7.5B gallons/year production capacity, we STILL won't have NEARLY enough domestic ethanol just to meet a E10 mandate. In fact, the 7.5B gallons would only be around 5% of the market. Since the vast majority of that production would go to meeting various E10 mandates, that leaves relatively little ethanol left for E85.
For some reason, I just don't see vast quantities of E85 hitting the market.
"...however with the 3.3L V-6 in the new Grand Caravan I am purchasing, I will be covered either way."
Yes, you are. Let us know the next time you use E85 and what kind of mileage you're getting.....
Let's suppose a crazy Iranian blows up the oil fields and stops all oil from flowing from the Middle East? We'll all be scrambling to buy E85 vehicles or just be sitting home (getting a big fat ZERO MPG).
It wouldn't take much of a market adjustment like that to ramp well beyond 7.5B/year. The invisible hand of the marketplace works very well!!!!
Here's a str8 forward look at E85:
Ethanol - Hype or fuel solution?
Keep in mind also - there's 6 million E85 vehicles already on the market!! How many Hybrids? And how much to replace all those batteries?
My point exactly, which unfortunately, just gets mocked by others who won't pay attention to the point I'm trying to make. it's not a hod-rod contest. In my new Accord I've never put the pedal on the floor from a redlight. Why? There's no point, as it accomplishes nothing that can't be done with 50% or 30% throttle. In fact, I go often for a week or two without seeing 3,500 RPM in my car, and especially not off the line.
On the freeway however, I've floored it several times...to merge safely, to get out of an eighteen-wheeler's way (and a state trooper, too)...and a few other times with similar instances.
If it was just a matter of hot-rodding, noone would be driving vans (and I wouldn't be driving a 4-cylinder automatic transmission sedan). The point is, on those places where merging from a 45 MPH curved on-ramp to a freeway where traffic is going 75-85 MPH (common on I-459 beltway in Birmingham) a 1.5 seconds to accelerate 20 MPH can be everything, espeicially when the potential "holes" that are there for squeezing into are moving fast...and your options are "gun it and fall in line" or slam on the brakes and wait hopelessly at the end of the ramp to where you have to go zero-flow of traffic in 50 feet. I'll take the passing power, especially when there's no fuel penalty for it.
Trust me, if the power wasn't a decisive issue to some people, why would Chrysler be getting together a high(er)-performance 4.0 liter V-6 for its next van to ensure its competitiveness.
I believe it's called "keeping up with competition" and progress, not "OMG we need to improve our 1.5 second passing deficit and improve merging". They're also coming out with a Diesel version, which I doubt is because of power. The current 3.8 V6 is a good engine, lots of torque, decent HP, low emissions...trouble is, it's mated to an ancient 4 spd auto. The 6 spd auto with overdrive coming out is more critical than the 4.0 V6. I doubt the engineers and marketing folks at Honda will be in awe of DCX's slight performance advantage (if there is any) when their next gen hit. They'll be more concerned about features and packaging - what most people buy a minivan for. As MT pointed out, the DCX vans are getting long in the tooth, Stow N Go was just an effective stopgap til 08MY. By any measure, the return on investment for retooling their chasis has been a resounding success.
I can't remember the last time I passed someone on a two lane road. Usually when someone's passing like that, or weaving in and out of traffic to get a car length ahead, they end up pulling into the same destination as me a whole 1 second ahead of me, while putting everyone else at risk. Right now I have a Company provided Taurus (160 hp V6), my DCX 3.8 GC and a 2001 BMW 3 series....never a problem merging with i75 traffic in Detroit with any of these. Ususally merging is more a factor of other people also merging with you on the same entrance ramp etc... If power was that decisive a factor, you'd have tons of merging accidents every morning during rush hour.
van
There are soo many factors....what about an old geezer driving a Corvette? or a younger driver in a Honda FIT ..... Passing time is just one part of the equation.
Have a nice day.
thegrad
That explains it all.
Gotta love MT...just got the issue with S&G comment "niffty idea in ways some minivan owners - and more than a few passengers-may find unacceptable" Apparently, the real people who purchase minivans don't agree with this as "Stown N Go" has been a major success for DCX, being credited with increase sales and helping DCX hold it's own against an onslaught of new minivans.
I like how they also don't comment on actual purchase price, just MSRP. Very few DCX buyers pay anywhere close to MSRP.
Last comment....DCX 19.9 MPG with ancient 4 spd auto and pushrod V6? verses 20.0 MPG for Ody with all it's high tech goodies??? Then Nissan and Kia with "Premium Unleaded"??? OUCH!!!!
Granted, Siennas and Odysseys were selling under invoice in my area when the 2006s were released last fall. Now you see reports of $1000 or more under invoice with incentives. The DCX may still be less expensive for a similarly equipped van, but anyone paying anywhere near MSRP on any minivan right now is getting robbed.
"Last comment....DCX 19.9 MPG with ancient 4 spd auto and pushrod V6? verses 20.0 MPG for Ody with all it's high tech goodies??? "
And, presumably, with its improved performance and higher curb weight? At the very least, perhaps this does show that you CAN have it all.
In the 2005 MT comparo, the Odyssey Touring got 19.8 compared to 18.4 for the GC SXT. Looks like the Odyssey is essentially the same in both tests but the GC improved by 1.5 mpg. I don't have the new issue- can you look in the link I posted and see if there are any obvious differences that might account for this?
Your only real mistake was correlating increased age to increased intelligence, wisdom and behavior. One has only to look at our political system to disprove this concept. IMO, let 'em laugh. It's human nature to mock what you don't want to believe, even if it is ultimately proven to be true. You know, people used to be put to death if they didn't believe the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Popular opinion isn't always the right opinion.
That's progress. Wait til 6 or 7 speeds are the norm, or turbo diesels etc......
I just picked up the new MT at the grocery store. In a quick skim, there isn't much difference from the 2005 and 2006 SXT they tested. Perhaps a slightly different trim level since the weight went up 80 pounds. Otherwise, all the performance tests were pretty consistent, so nothing to explain the improved fuel economy. Perhaps their fuel economy testing isn't consistent from one roundup to the next due to temperatures, routes, etc.
The 2006 Odyssey they tested is an EX-L, while the 2005 was the Touring. The results were also similar, though the EX-L seems to have very slight (possibly meaningless) acceleration and handling advantages, maybe in part from saving almost 80 pounds.
But, I could sit on concrete seats and it wouldn't bother me.
I only sat in the stow n go seat for a few minutes during a car show...felt fine to me...much better than concrete at least.
Laugh all you want, but I did not just buy the Odyssey for its handling and performance over the DCX vans. I also bought it for the safety features (namely stability control), resale value, gas mileage, and seat comfort. Nearly every professional review I have read commented that the second row seating in the DCX vans are not as comfortable as the competition. I found that to be true in my test drive as well.
and by the way, go test drive entourage. it's a sleeper.
Really? I guess that explains all the gasoline refineries that have been built lately......
It's a great supplement, but I don't see it ever coming close to replacing gasoline at reasonable prices. Still, seems like a no brainer to have the option of gasoline or E85, especially if there is minimal cost involved for compatibility. I'd pay the same or more to use E85. I'd rather support domestic farmers and agribusiness than foreign monarchs and global oil giants.
Really? I guess that explains all the gasoline refineries that have been built lately......
Like the article said...E85 facilities are sprouting up all over the Midwest!!! Just wait! In a few years, you'll be paying a fortune for a dozen ears of corn for a cookout